British Reaction To Amritsar Massacre

The Past and Present Society
British Reaction to the Amritsar Massacre 1919-1920 Author(s): Derek Sayer Source: Past & Present, No. 131 (May, 1991), pp. 130-164 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/650872 . Accessed: 24/02/2011 23:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press and The Past and Present Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Past & Present.
http://www.jstor.org
BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE 1919-1920*

You think Jallianwala provesthat the Britishare lying, talkingfreedom but acting tyrannically dealingdestruction? and Again you are wrong. Jallianwala could never have happenedif the Britishwho talk freedom were not sincere.It happened becausethey are sincere.1 "We'renot out here for the purposeof behavingpleasantly!" "Whatdo you mean?" "WhatI say. We'reout here to do justiceand keep the peace. Them's my sentiments. Indiaisn't a drawing-room." "Yoursentiments those of a god," she saidquietly.2 are
On the afternoon 13 April 1919,Brigadier-General of Reginald Dyer3led fifty riflemenof the 1/9th Gurkhas, 54th Sikhsand 59thSikhsthrough streets Amritsar theJallianwala the of to Bagh, wherea meetingwas beingheld in defiance his proclamation of banning suchgatherings. Baghwasa pieceof wasteground, The sometwo hundred yardslong, whollyenclosed the backsof by housesand low boundary walls. It had three or four narrow entrances, mainone only broadenoughfor two peopleto the
* I am indebtedto JohnComoroff, PhilipCorrigan, JohnGartrell, VictorKiernan, Philip Lawson,P. A. Saram,Teodor Shaninand Hugh Wilsonfor commentson earlierdrafts of this article. I owe E. P. Thompsonparticular thanks both for commentsand for makingavailable unpublished work of his own. This articleis indebted a number studiesof the Amritsar to of massacre, thoughmy argument differs fromtheirs:V. N. Datta,3'allianzvala (Ludhiana, Bagh 1969);A. Draper,Amritsar: The Massacre that Endedthe Raj (London, 1981); H. Fein, ImperialCrimeand Punishment: Massacre The atffallianwala andBritish3'udgement, Bagh 1919-1920 (Honolulu, 1977); R. Furneaux,Massacre Amritsar at (London, 1963); R. Ram, The 3fallianwala Massacre: Premeditated (Chandigarh, Bagh A Plan 1969);A. Swinson,Six Min?wtesSunset to (London,1964). 1PaulScott, TheDay of theScorpion, TheRaj Quartet in (1966-75)(London,1976 edn.; firstpubd. 1968),p. 62. 2 E. M. Forster, A Passage India(London,1985edn.; firstpubd. 1924),p. 62. to 3 Bornat Murree, smallhill-station the Punjab, a in in 1864,Dyer was educated at BishopCottonSchool,Simla,Middleton College,co. Cork,andthe RoyalMilitary College, Simla. He was commissioned the Queen's Royal Regimentin 1885, in transferring the IndianArmyin 1888, wherehe servedwith distinction. to During WorldWarI, he commanded Britishoperations south-east in Persia,receiving C.B. a The Dictionary NationalBiography of describeshim as a simpRe courageous and soldier an imagetoutedby his supporters 1919-20(see, for example,the letter in to TheTimes, June 1920,on the reliefof Thal, fromone of his men). 1
BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE
131
walkabreast. This provedtoo smallto permitthe passage the of two armoured cars, with mountedmachine-guns, which Dyer hadbrought with him. Shortly after5 p.m. he led his troopsup the narrow alley. The crowdin the Baghwas laterestimated at more than twenty thousandpeople. Amongthem were many villagers fromthe surrounding countryside, Amritsar the in for Baisakkiholiday andthe cattle-market on thatday. held Withinthirtysecondsof his arrival Dyer ordered men to his openfire.No warning given,norwasthereanydemand was that the crowddisperse. The firingcontinued ten minutes; all, for in 1,650roundswerespent.Dyer ordered to be focusedwhere fire the crowdwas thickest,including exits. He only gave the the orderto ceasefirewhenhis ammunition virtually was exhausted. According officialfigures,379 people were killed and over to 1,200 wounded;Indianestimatesare much higher.Dyer later acknowledged hadhe beenableto use his machine-guns that he probably wouldhave done so, with inevitably largercasualties. He madeno provision the wounded; was,he said,"notmy for it job".4Suchwas "Amritsar", singleeventwhichby common the consentdid mostto undoBritishrulein India.
WinstonChurchill, secretary state for Warat the time, the of calledit "an episode ... withoutprecedentor parallelin the modern history the British of Empire . . an extraordinary . event, a monstrous event,an eventwhichstands singular sinister in and isolation". Herbert Asquithclaimed "therehasneverbeensuch an incidentin the whole annalsof Anglo-Indian historynor, I believe,in the historyof our Empirefrom its very inception downto the presentday . . . It is one of the worstoutrages in thewholeof ourhistory".5 somewaystheywereundoubtedly In right.The Britishhad put down armeduprisings Indiaand in elsewhere the pastwithexemplary in brutality.6 no previous But
4 Report of the Committee Appointed the Goq)ernmentIndiato Investigate by of the Disturbances the Punjab, in etc., Parliamentary Papers(hereafter P.P.), 1920 (Cmd. 681),xiv, pp. 1001-192(hereafter Hunter Committee), 1120. p. 5 Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, cols. 1725, 1736. 6 Duringthe Indian Mutinyreprisals been savage,whilein 1872localofficials had atMalerKotlain the Punjabhad sixty-fiveKukarebelsblownfromthe mouthsof cannon (withoutpriortrial). This actionwas approved the Punjabgovernment, by butreprovedby the government India,who removedits perpetrator of fromoffice (with pension).InJamaica, 1865,Governor a in JohnEyrehadfourhundred (arbitrar-
(cont. on p. 132)
132
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
use of military force,in the UnitedKingdom colonies, or against an unarmed and peaceable crowd had resultedin a remotely comparable of life. Peterlooleft eleven dead)and perhaps loss five hundred wounded.7 Thereis no evidencethatthe Amritsar massacre was an act of deliberate policy, comparable Nazi to reprisals Lidiceandelsewhere. appears, the faceof it, a at It on tragic aberration British in imperial history, Dyer'sindividual and responsibility alone. Perceptions Amritsars of singularity dominated Enghave the lish historiography. sign of this is just how little has been One written,outsideIndia,on whatA. J. P. Taylorhas called"the decisive moment whenIndians werealienated fromBritish rule".8 Thisstems,I believe,frommorethanembarrassment the face in of one of the less gloriouschapters Britishhistory.The conin struction the Amritsar of massacre from the startas "singular and sinister"marginalizes There has been no need felt to it. agonizeover Amritsar in any sensea national as shamebecause it is aberrant, a categoryby itself, not part of the national in history all. Thosefew English at worksthatdo existon the topic have for the most part acceptedthis frameof reference. They assume,and then seek to explain)the exceptionality Dyer's of action.RupertFurneauxsuggeststhat Dyer's judgement was impaired the arterio-sclerosis whichhe suffered.9 by from Like others,he has also made much of the discrepancies Dyer's in testimony various at times,arguing it wasonlyhissubsequent that acclamation the "Saviour the Punjab"which led him to as of explainhis actionas stemming fromanything otherthanfearof being overwhelmed the crowd.10 this is true) it is itself by If
(n. 6 cont.)
ily selected)blackskilled,six hundred floggedandone thousand hutsburnedby way of reprisal rebellion: wasremovedfromoffice(andprosecuted JohnStuart for he by Mill). In the UnitedKingdom,we mightrecallthe four hundred so killedin the or suppression the Gordon of Riots. 7 See E. P. Thompson,TheMaking the English of Working Class(London,1968), p. 754. 8 Quotedin Fein, Imperial Crime Punishment, xii. and p. 9 Furneaux, Massacre Amritsar, 176-7. at pp. 10 Ibid.,pp. 174ff. In support this view Furneaux of citesCaptain Briggs,who was with Dyer at Jallianwala, Miles Irving, the districtcommissioner, Dyer's and on behaviour immediately afterwards. wasEdward It Thompson publicized who Irving's testimony, his A Letter in fromIndia(London,1930),pp. 102, 104.He did not do so with the intentionof exonerating Dyer; as he said in a speechat '<Amritsar Day" (London,Conway Hall, 13 April 1945)Dyer'saction"wasindefensible", much and of whatwas said in his defencein subsequent debates"if I were an Indian,I should
(cont. on p. 133J
MASSACRE TO BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR
133
thathe was "trailing To revealing. defendDyer on the grounds opinionbegs the questionof the his coat"beforeAnglo-Indian of character thatopinionitself.ll in have all Butby no means commentators agreed seeingDyer's different. Indianvoices are significantly action as "singular". wrotethat"Wedo not wantto punishDyer. Wehaveno Gandhi desirefor revenge.Wewantto changethe systemthatproduced Dyer''.l2RajaRam claims in my view, withoutsupporting "wasnot the resultof a decision evidence that the massacre Dyer)on thespurof themoment, (General takenby anindividual and in designed advance, explan, butof a premeditated carefully V. bureaucracy''.l3 N. day, ecutedon theappointed by theBritish but phenomenon, "anexDattainsiststhatit wasnot an isolated betweenrulerand ruled''.l4Helen pressionof a confrontation that likewise concludes Jallianwala sociologist, Fein,an American punishment collective instance a repressive of was"aprototypical by practiced the Britishin blackandAsiancolonies''.ls Ben Spoor, Similarpoints were made by contemporaries. debate the Partyduring 1920Commons for speaking the Labour was that on the Dyer case, contended "Amritsar not an isolated Three officer". Dyerwasanisolated eventanymorethanGeneral Ramsay weeks before,at the LabourPartyannualconference, had MacDonald warnedthat Dyer must not be allowedto be failingsof civil government for madethe scapegoat the broader was singularity not confined This denialof Amritsar's in India.l6 in to the criticsof Britishimperialism Indiaor Britain.Many or side others,on theopposite of the fencefromGandhi MacDon(or, ald, did not see Dyer'sactionas "singular" in theircase,as diseither.At the time, the Britishgovernment's "monstrous") opinion, by of avowal Dyerwasdeplored thebulkof Anglo-Indian
(n. 10 cont.)
find it almost impossible to forgive"; "To Indians of every race and religion, Amritsar was a flashlight. It revealed what their rulers thought of them". I owe this information to E. P. Thompson. 11"Trailing his coat" was Miles Irving's description: see Thompson, Letterfrom India, p. 104. Throughout this paper the term "Anglo-Indian" is used to refer to the British in India, as distinct from in Britain. Bagh, frontispiece. 12 Cited in Datta, 3rallianwala Bagh Massacre, p. vii. 13 Ram, 3tallianwala Bagh, p. ix. 14 Datta, 3rallianwala 15Fein, Imperial Crimeand Punishment,pp. Xii-Xiii. 16 For Spoor, see Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, col. 1739; for MacDonald, see The Times, 25 June 1920.
134
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
sectionsof the pressin bothIndiaandBritain, verysubstantial a minority the Houseof Commons, majority the Lords,and in a in (eventually) court of King's Bench not to mentionthe the manywhogavein theirdrovesto Dyer'sdefence fund.For them too the massacre no aberration. was exactlywhat Dyer was It saidit was:"myduty my horrible, dirtyduty''.17 contenMy tionherewill be thatthesecontemporaries correct. were Though Amritsar in somequiteobvious was wayssingular, explanation its lies ratherin the waysit wasnot. In the British responses Jallianwala in 1919-20we can to Bagh see different constructions eventsin the making.I shallsay of little more in this paperaboutthe LabourPartyview, save to registerits existence.It needsto be placedon recordthatsome British menandwomendidseeJallianwala termsof the pathoin logyof a system,notanindividual. Theseincluded Anglo-Indians likeBenjamin Horniman, editorof theBombay Guy the Chronicle, who wasdeported Britain his criticisms the handling to for of of the Punjab disturbances. attempt offered No is hereto assesshow representative sentiments such were. My concern ratherwith is theresponses thosewe canlooselycallthe "governing of classes", bothin Indiaand "at home".Oneresponse, whichstarted with the findings the HunterCommittee up to investigate of set the disorders, to becomethe authorized was version.This was the view of the Britishgovernment somewhat reluctantly acquiescedin by the government India and of the moreliberal of end of the press. It was intimately boundup with changesin formsof colonialrule, symbolized the Montagu-Chelmsford by reform schemeof 1919,whichprovided limitedIndian for participationin some areasof government the road to eventual on dominion status.18 is thisofficial It version whichhasset theterms for much of the historiography. other view I will look at The
Quotedin Daily Mail, 4 May 1920. Montagu's moraland personal commitment his reformswas undoubted. to He wasappointed secretary statefor Indiain June1917;betweenNovember1917and of May 1918 he touredIndia,consulting cajoling.His personaldiaryof this tour and waspublished posthumously his wife as EdwinS. Montagu, Indian Diary, ed. by An V. Montagu (London,1930);in it he remarks referring his Jewishness that to "there is some truth in the allegation that I am an Oriental.Certainly that social relationship which Englishpeoplefind so difficultcomesquite easilyto me" (ibid., p. 17). The aim of the reforms,as he definedit in the House of Commons 20 on August1917,was"thegradual development self-governing of institutions a view with to the progressive realisation responsible of government an integralpart of the as BritishEmpire": Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), xcvii, col. 1695.
17 18
135
hereis the versionespoused Dyer'smanysupporters. was by It anchored the socialritualsand practices rule of the postin of Mutinyera in India.l9It was also, and not incidentally, linked withstruggles goingon at the timein Ireland: Edward Sir Carson wasone of Dyer'smostpassionate advocates. not the majority If view at the time, it undoubtedly commanded very wide assent. It also,I shallargue,makessense of a sort of the massacre. Antecedent eventsalonedo not: whatis criticalis the meanings thatwereput on them. II Disaffection widespread Indiain 1919.2? warhadled was in The to much hardship, the Montagu-Chelmsford and reformswere widelyseen as poor recompense. AnnieBesantspokefor many whenshe calledthem "unworthy Britain offeror Indiato of to accept'';21 wererejected both Congress the Muslim they by and League.The RowlattBills the immediate targetof Indian protestsearly in 1919 addedinsult to injury.The first bill passed lawon 21 March the Anarchical Revolutionary into as and Crimes It provided the trialof political Act. for offenders three by HighCourtjudges,with no juryor rightof appeal.Trialscould take place in camera,and hear evidencewhich would not be admissible underthe IndianEvidenceAct. The executivewas empowered arrest, to search without warrant confine and suspects withouttrialfor renewable periodsof up to a year.The second RowlattBill, eventuallydropped,would also have made possessionof seditious publications imprisonable an offence.Indian politicians foughta fiercecampaign against Rowlatt, demonand strations tookplaceacrossIndia.Gandhi's satyagraha movement waslaunched Bombay. in Therewasrioting Ahmedabad, in Delhi andseveraldistricts the Punjab. of
19 There is no space to do more than alludeto this; but I want to underline the historical specificity the set of moralattitudesI tracehere. "Colonial" of attitudes changed over time (andnot alwaysto the more "liberal"), partin responseto the in struggles the colonized, afterthe "Mutiny".Thereis a good briefdiscussion of as in V. G. Kiernan,TheLords Human of Kind(London,1972).Fictionis a good source for Anglo-Indian attitudesduringthis period,notablythat of Kipling,especially his earlystories,in R. Kipling,Plain Tales from the Hills (London,1888);R. Kipling, WeeWillieWinkie (London,1888).Forster's Passage Indiais also seminal. to 20 Datta, 3rallianwala Bagh, introduction, 1, is excellenton the wartimeand ch. immediate post-war background. Fein, Imperial Crime Punishment, discusses and ch.3, the period1858-1919. 21 Quoted in Datta,3rallianwala Bagh,p. 28.
136
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
Sir MichaelO'Dwyer,the lieutenant-governor the Punjab of from 1913to 1919, had a reputation "tough"rule. His alfor legedlycoercive recruiting practices duringthe war(the Punjab, with some 7.5 per cent of India'spopulation, suppliedsome 60 per centof the troopsrecruited there)addedspecific localgrievancesto thosegeneral throughout India.22 O'Dwyer's Anglo-Irish background he wasone of the fourteen children a middling of landlord is not irrelevant his perceptions what his job to of demanded him:"he knewfromboyhood", PhilipMason, of says "whatconspiracy outrage and meanto peaceful folk".23 General Dyertoo hadformative earlyexperiences Ireland, in having been educatedat MiddletonCollege,CountyCork. O'Dwyerwas, according the Dictionary National to of Biography, warmsym"a pathiserwith the rural classes",but firmly believedin "the necessity British of control Indiaforthatcountry's of welfare".24 He opposedthe Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.Duringthe war he had ruthlesslycrusheddissent most notablythe Ghadr organization launched Sikhsin NorthAmerica muzzled by the Indianpress and preventedIndianactivistsfrom enteringthe Punjab. Controls the pressweresteppedup earlyin 1919. on Therehadbeenseveral protest meetings Amritsar in itselfover Rowlatt,leadingto a hartal25 30 March1919. The Punjab on government prohibited of the organizers the protests, two of Drs. Satyapal Kitchlew,fromspeaking public,communicating and in withthe pressor leavingAmritsar. secondhartalwas set for A 6 April.At a meeting fiftythousand of peopletwo demands were made:the repealof Rowlattand the rescinding the orders of against Kitchlewand Satyapal. The hartalpassedoff without violence. None the less MilesIrving,the deputycommissioner, requested increase military an in forcesto defendthe CivilLines, theareaoutsideAmritsar properwherethe Europeans lived. On 9 Apriltherewas a Hindureligious festival,RamNaumi.
22 The majority reportof the HunterCommittee deniedthat recruitment a was factor the 1919Punjab in disturbances: Hunter Committee, 1066;Datta,3tallianwala p. Bagh, 9-20, makesa convincing well-documented to the contrary pp. and case 23 p. Woodruff [Philip Mason],TheMenWho Ruled India,2 vols. (London,1953-4), ii,p. 238. 24 See M. O'Dwyer,Indiaas I Knew It: 1885-1925 (London,1925),for his views. 25 A hartalis a cessationof ordinary activity, in effect a generalstrike. It has religious connotations. MurliDharexplained the Tribune, Apr. 1919:"Whatis in 13 Hartal?. . when the deadbody of the RowlattActs is still in our midst,we have . suspended business mustremovethe corpsefromthe housebeforethe people all and can breaktheirfast and resumebusiness".
137
Remarkable scenesof "fraternization" between Hindus Musand lims,including public the sharing water-vessels, witnessed of were uneasily by Miles Irving.The HunterReportlatercommented "inAmritsar elsewhere that as efforts towards 'unity'had beenmadelargely indeedfrankly a political in interest", suchcooperation "the warring of creeds"testifying the influence to of Kitchlew otherleaders.26 evening and That Irving received orders from O'Dwyerfor the arrest,deportation from Amritsar and detention KitchlewandSatyapal. was decidedto invitethe of It two mento Irving's bungalow 10 a.m. the next day,andspirit at them out of Amritsar. Picketswere to be postedto defendthe CivilLines,andplanswere laidfor the evacuation European of womenandchildren the Gobindgarh to fort. On 10 Aprilthe newsof the deportation Satyapal Kitchof and lew spreadswiftly, and crowds who by then knew also of Gandhi's arrestthe previous evening collected rapidly.They movedthrough centreof the city, heading the CivilLines the for where they intendedto protestagainstthe arrestsat Irving's bungalow. this stage, therewas no violence,and Europeans At encountered the crowd were not molested.Nor was any by property attacked. at two of the bridgesseparating city But the fromthe CivilLinestherewasbloodshed. bothcasesit would In seem that the crowdspushedforward,resortedeventuallyto stoning troops,andwerefiredupon.Prominent lawyers the local triedto intercede: of them,Maqbool one Mahmood, claimed that "if the authorities a little more patiencewe would have had succeededin takingthe crowd back".27 The firing official figures twelvedeadandtwentyto thirtywounded changed give the temperof the crowd. By the end of the day manybuildings had been looted and burned down,andfiveEuropeans beenbeatento death.One had suchassault, attack themanager theCityMission the on of School, MissSherwood who wasleft for dead,but wasgivenfirstaid by Hindushopkeepers was particularly incenseDyer, who to
26 Hunter Committee, p. 1024. Note how "communal" antipathy is taken as "normal" here, while its absenceis disturbing and artificial. Such conceptions served as justificationsfor British rule. It is open to question how much the sort of conceptions evidenced here were actively constitutive of the communal violence they portray as endemically "native". Social identities are not just given, they are made, in part through the forms through which power is exercised. 27 Quoted in Datta, 3rallianwala Bagh, p. 76. Mahmood was afterwards put under pressure tc give false evidence: see Fein, Imperial Crime and Punishment,p. 38.
138
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
arrived Amritsar the next eveningto takeeffective in late control of the city fromthe civil authorities. rest of the European The womenandchildren weresafelyensconced the fortby 4 p.m. in on 10 April.The railway lineshadbeendamaged, telegraph and and telephone wires cut. Wordcamein, magnified rumour, by of riot, murder arsonelsewhere the Punjab. and in III Grave the situation Amritsar Dyer'sarrival as in on undoubtedly was, it does not fully accountfor whathappened Jallianwala at two dayslater.Forby 13April,the beleagured garrison been had amplyreinforced, no further and violence broken indeed had out; "ringleaders" were beingarrested 12 April.Dyer'sshooting on was not necessitated, any militarysense, by the situation in in Amritsar. comprehend massacre needto look beyond To the we the eventsI haveoutlined. It is revealing, however,of both the moralrelations involved and the way these continueto hauntthe historiography, a that simplenarrative the eventswhichculminated the riotingof of in 10 Aprilhas frequently servedas justification the massacre, for beginning with an article"By an Englishwoman" Blackwood's in Magazine April 1920. This is an eye-witness for accountof the riots of 10 April and the crowded,insanitary servantless and conditions suffered the European by womenand children "who hadneverknowna day'srealhardship before"in the fortduring thenextfew days.It concluded "General that Dyer'saction alone savedthem".28 authorfelt no need to explainhow or why The thiswasso: she simplytookit to be self-evident. a muchlater In book(1981),AlfredDraper achieves muchthe sameeffectby his liberaluse of purpleprose:the "mobs"were "frenzied" and "half-crazed", cries"likethe howling wolves".29 their of Knowinglyor otherwisehe echoesDyer's contemporary supporters. "APlanter"wrote in 1920to the Calcutta Statesman, berating twenty-five missionaries had had the temerityto criticize who Dyer's"Prussianism": wonderif they will thinkof the man "I whom havehelpedto malign evertheyhavetheexperience they if
"Amritsar: an Englishwoman", By Blackwood's Mag., ccvii (1920),pp. 444, 446. Draper,Amritsar, pp. 64 ff. I do not suggesthe is beingdeliberately racist:the pointis the cliched "appropriateness" such narrativedevices. The chapteris of entitled "Murder, LootingandArson",not, forinstance,"Duplicity, Repression and Resistance", it mightbe froma different as viewpoint.
28 29
139
of being chasedby a maddened mob of coolieswho are out for theirblood".30 Draper's mob, too, bayedfor "whiteblood''.3l What is conveyedthroughthe silences in the anonymous Englishwoman's accountand the imagery Draper'snarrative of is that,contrary LordBirkenhead's to argument the debateon in Dyer in the Lords, conductwas called for in Amritsar which wouldhavebeen unthinkable Glasgow Belfastor Wlnni"in or peg'.32Thatit wasBritish actions fromthe flagrant disregard of "due process"in Rowlatt,to the arrestand deportation of Kitchlew and Satyapaland the initial British firing at the bridges whichprovokedIndianretaliation) that far more or Indianstwho remainnameless) than Europeans were killed or wounded 10 April,let alone13 April,is lost sightof. Indiais on represented a different as moraluniverse: violenceby British and Indians not equivalent. is Fein has madethis pointin her study. It is an important one. The otherness India an otherness of whichwasnurtured thesocialdistanclng in fundamental British to life in, andruleof, India- was fundamental the legitimation to of the actionsof Dyer and others,enabling theirtransmutation from what wouldotherwise seen as crimesinto moralacts. be Fein's conclusion,that colonialrulersexclude the ruled from their own domainof moralobligation,is, however,an oversimplification.33 It is certainly thatdifferent true moralstandards wereapplied to Britishand Indianactions.But this does not meanthat the Britishrecognized obligations no towardsIndians.On the contrary)Dyer'sactionswere defended contemporaries beby just causehe hadactedmorally-dutifully according the canons to of mutualobligationbetweenrulersand ruled, as they were definedby the former.This is, in many ways, what is most revealing British in responses Jallianwala) it testifies what to for to is alwaysa key dimension rule. Legitimation as centrally of is a matterof authorizing actionsof rulersas of securingthe the compliance the ruled;andit is betteranalysed an essential, of as animating component powerthanas its merepOSt festum 'raof tionalization". Morality,in the contextof governance, colonial
Statesman [Calcutta], July 1920.I owe this reference E. P. Thompson. 20 to Draper,Amritsar, p. 71. 32 Hansard, 5th ser. (Lords), xli) col. 279. The Winnipeg reference to the general is strikeof May-June1919. 33 Fein, Imperial Crime and Punishment, passim: it is her majorexplanatory hypothesis)buildingon EmileDurkheim.
30 31
140
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
or otherwise,is far more than "ideology".34 "BritishIndia" restedas firmlyon a set of moralrelations it did on bayonets as orbullets. Underpinning is a positive these construction Indians of as particular sorts of subject,in a way which Draper'sbook echoes,sixty yearson.35 was this whichpermitted coherent It a moraldefenceof Dyer's action,and goes far towardsexplaining it. IV Certainother Britishactionsduringthat springin the Punjab provideus with one point of entry into this (intensely) moral universe. 15 Aprilmartial wasimposed Amritsar On law on and four otherdistrictsof the Punjab.At O'Dwyer'sbehestit was backdated 30 March, order"to dealappropriately the to in with localleaderswhosespeechesduringthe preceding fortnight did so muchto inflame classeswho havejoinedthe disturbances".36 ThismeantthatKitchlew Satyapal, and despitebeingin custody on 10 April, couldstill be triedundermartial-law regulations, which createdsummarycourts under one or more military ofiicers, set up fourmartial-law and commissions moreserious for cases.The lattersat in camera, werenot obligedto recordevidence,and permitted only limitedcross-examination. Choiceof counsel in any caseseverelyrestricted was sinceoutsidelawyers werebannedfrom the Punjab.Of the 852 accused,581 were convicted; weresentenced death, 264(including 108 to and Kitchlew and Satyapal, convictedon the testimonyof an "official approver"37)transportation life.Therewasno appeal. to for Most of these martial-law commission sentences(aftermuch protest about procedure; laterjudicial a reviewgenerally vindicated the protestors) commuted royalproclamation December were by in 1919. by theneighteenmenhadbeenpublicly But hanged. In the summary courtsfloggingwas the normalpunishment.
34 On this point, see, further, P. Corrigan D. Sayer, The Great Arch: English and StateFormationas Cultural Revolution(New Yorkand Oxford,1985). 35 On the sensein whichI am using"positivity" here,see anyof MichelFoucault's later writings,but particularly Foucault,"The Subjectand Power", Critical M. Inquiry, (1982);for the construction knowledge viii of in/of India,see B. Cohn,An Anthropologist amongHistoriansand Other Essays (Oxford,1988). 36 Telegram fromchiefsecretary Punjab of government secretary government to of of India,quotedin Draper,Amritsar, p. 125. 37 HansRaj, who may havebeen an agent provocateur.See ibid., pp. 58-62, 79-80, 86-7, 128-36.
141
In around half the casesit was done publicly: thereare reports fromLahoreof European spectators enthusiastically urgingthe wielders thecaneto strikeharder. wedding of A partywasflogged for beingan illegalgathering, a groupof menwerewhipped and beforean audienceof prostitutes visitinga brothelduring for curfew.There are numerous accountsby Indianwitnessesof attemptsto coerce them, both physicallyand otherwise,into givingfalseevidence.38 Collectivepunishments were widely imposed.In Amritsar, waterand electricity supplieswere shut off. Vehicles,including bicycles,were commandeered; were fans, for the relief of so soldiers.The issue of third- and intermediate-class tickets rail was suspended, effectively barring Indians fromthe railways. A strictcurfew remained force.In Lahore in students wereexpelled from colleges,not on the basis of provenparticipation the in disturbances, by quota.Students but were also forcedto march up to seventeen milesa dayin the sun. In Chuhar Karapeasants were forbidden harvesttheir crops.There were casesof atto temptedaerialbombing,in one instanceof a girls' school, in another a mosque. of But what most distinguishes manyof the martial-law orders was their ritualistically humiliatingcharacter.Thus Captain Dovetonin Kasur,the man who devisedthe whipping front in of the prostitutes, numbered amonghis "fancypunishments" makingpeople skip, recite poems and touch the groundwith theirnoses.It is alsoallegedthathe hadpeoplewhitewashed. In Malawakal Sheikupura malesweremadeto do the work and all of sweepers untouchables which,for Hindus,is polluting. In Amritsar Dyer hadall the lawyersin the city act as "special constables". Their "policing duties"included menialworkand the witnessing floggings. of Orders requiring salaaming, saluting and descending from transport were widely promulgated. The text of one suchorderrunsas follows:
Whereas hascometo my noticethatcertain it inhabitants the Gujranwala of Districtarehabitually exhibiting lackof respectfor gazettedor commisa sioned EuropeanCivil and MilitaryOfficersof His Majesty'sService,
38 Evidence martial-law of abuses,judicial otherwise, and citedhereis takenmainly fromthe HunterCommittee report.The fullestsourceis the Report of the CommissionersAppointedby the Punjab Sub-Committee the Indian National Congress,2 vols. of (Bombay,1920).Congress boycottedthe HunterCommittee established own and its inquiryinto the disorders, denounced "biased"by Anglo-Indians as becauseGandhi was one of its members. alsoFein, Imperial Crimeand Punishment,ch. 2. See
142
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
I the therebyfailingto maintain dignityof thatGovernment: herebyorder District shall accordto all such of that the inhabitants the Gujranwala gentlemen to usually accorded Indian met, thesalutation whenever officers, with the customsof India.That is to of high socialpositionin accordance will or ridingon animals on or in wheeledconveyances alight, say,persons shall lower them, and all personscarryingopenedand raisedumbrellas with the hand.39 personsshallsaluteor "salaam"
on by Questioned the HunterCommittee thisorder,Lieutenantcomat Colonel O'Brien, district commissioner Gujranwala, respectof mented:"The tendency the presentday is to abolish father tellyouthatsonsarenotrespectful will The fulness. Indian is One even to their parents".40 man, at Wazirabad, allegedto to bootsforfailing salute.The havebeenmadeto lickan officer's orderof this kind,however,wasDyer's. mostnotorious and MissSherwood, On 19 Aprilhe visitedthe badlywounded He his "searched brainfor a suitablepunishment". closedthe triangle erecteda whipping streetwhereshe hadbeenassaulted, thatany personwishing at one end, postedpicketsandordered had its the to passthrough street(including residents) to do so peoplehad to squirmthroughthe filth on all fours.In practice of the lane on their bellies, proddedalong by the boots and routed bayonetsof the soldiers. Prisonerswere deliberately Lane".Dyer laterexplained: the through "Crawling
to It is a completemisunderstanding supposethat I meantthis orderto The ordermeantthat the street be an insultingmarkof raceinferiority. as shouldbe regarded holy ground,and that, to markthis fact, no one was to traverseit except in a mannerin whicha placeof specialsanctity in might naturally the East be traversed.My object was not merelyto but impressthe inhabitants, to appealto theirmoralsensein a way which I knew they wouldunderstand.41
sacred Lane",at the sametime,a building Withinthe "Crawling to Hinduswas defiled,and "the wells . . . were pollutedby the Six near easing themselves them".42 youthswerearrested soldiers in on suspicionof involvement the assaulton Miss Sherwood. with the nicetiesof a trial,had them flogged Dyer, dispensing orderunacceptable, foundDyer'scrawling there.EvenO'Dwyer it rescinding on 25 April. pp. Committee, 1087-8. Hunter
39
4?Ibid.,p.1127. R. by Statement Brig.-General E. H. Dyer,C.B., P.P., in 41 Disturbances thePunjab: to 1920 (Cmd. 771), xxxiv, pp. 677-704 (hereafterStatement the Army Council), p. 693. Congress National p. and Crime Punishment, 42, quotingthe Indian 42 Fein, Imperial report.She aptlynotesthe symbolism.
MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH
143
patternto these events. Martiallaw, There is a systematic had disturbances beenput down,served afterthe major declared There ratherthan to controldisorder. punishment to facilitate of was scantregardfor the hallowedprinciples Britishjustice. of government an Act of Indemby The hastypassage the Indian nity in October1919,whichsought"to protectfromlegalprobeliefthatit was bona ceedings fideactiontakenwitha reasonable the conveyedessentially same to necessary suppressdisorder", guilt was neitherhere nor there, on either message.Individual wereopenlyandonerously punishments side. Manymartial-law and collective, collectively thatis to say,racially degrading. the They underlined socialdistancebetweenrulersand ruled. the including the orderepitomizes symbolism: Dyer's crawling taboofor the Indian the of whitewomanhood, ultimate elevation of the It male,to sacredness. is worthunderlining recurrence the was (MissSherwood not raped)in contemthemeof "violation" The imagesof theseevents.43 sacred,as EmileDurkheim porary observed,is that whichis "set apart,that whichis separated"; it". profanes The sacredandthe "anymixture,or even contact, What and are profane "heterogeneous incommensurable".44 was and being restoredin the Punjabwas a properlyhierarchized moralorder. dulysanctified
V
Dyer had soughtand obtained afterthe massacre Immediately officer,General for approval his actionsfrom his commanding of as Beynon,andO'Dwyer.He waswidelylauded "thesaviour He the Punjab". claimed(as did others,then and later)that he of enjoyedthe support loyalIndians:
the leadingmen from the districtcame forwardto me and offeredme them. I and 10,000Sikhsto fightfor the Raj,andinvitedme to command honourof beingmadeSikhs,and receivedthe unusual Officer my Brigade
cited in my text, see The Times,1 June 1920,on "incite43 Apartfrom instances The Englishwomen". two novelsfromwhich to mentsto the mobat Lyallpur outrage rapes: I havetakenthe quoteswhichopen this paperboth haveas theircentrepiece i) (Raj Quartet, thoughthe heroineis raped, in Paul Scott, Theffewelin the Crown to the manpunishedwas not the rapist,but her (Indian)lover;in A Passage India, Forsterleaves it open whethera rape occurredat all. Both heroinesare "naive" to strangers the Rajand its codes. Englishoutsiders, trans.D. F. Pocock(New York,1974), and Sociology Philosophy, 44 E. Durkheim, p. 70.
l44
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
I was acclaimed variousoccasionsby nativegatherings the officer on as who had savedthe situation.45
The manager the GoldenTemple,whereDyer was allegedly of madeanhonorary Sikh,ArurSingh, a government was appointee, andmartial wasin force.Boththe templeauthorities the law and SikhLeagueissueda promptdenunciation the Britishuse of of the templefor political purposes. the storywas to be made But muchof "at home",whereit was takenas confirmation the of gratitude the "loyalnative".The symbolism this incident of of is as instructive thatof the "Crawling as Lane". On 8 May 1919 Dyer left Amritsar fight on the Afghan to border. Augusthe filedhis official In reportto the general staff, 16thIndian Division,on his actions Amritsar. in Thenconfident that he enjoyedthe full supportof his superiors, Dyer was far less guarded thanin someof his laterstatements. considered He it his "bounden duty"to fire on the crowd.He believedin the use of minimum force,but "at Amritsar casewasdifferent". the The meeting heldin defiance his proclamation was of banning all gatherings, musthavereceived and amplewarning his coming. of Thevillagers there,he understood without givinganyevidence for this belief had been enticedto the meetingby a promise that their taxes and land revenueswould be reduced"as the British'Raj'wasat an end. Evidently thosewho camebelieving the British'Raj'was at an end were themselves very innonot cent".He did not suggestthatfearof attack the mobled him by to fire. He did makeit quite clearthat he "hadampletime to consider natureof the painfulduty I mightbe facedwith", the and "hadconsidered matterfromeverypointof view". He the was,in short,resolved firingbeforehe reached Bagh. on the On arriving there,"therewasno reason further to parleywith the mob;evidently they werethereto defythe armof the law". Noticehowa peaceful crowdhasalready become "mob".Dyer a thenstates,succinctly, exactlywhy he actedas he did:
The responsibility very great.If I firedI must fire with good effect, was a smallamountof firingwouldbe a criminal of folly. I had the choice act of carrying a very distasteful horribleduty or of neglecting do out and to my duty,of suppressing disorder of becoming or responsible all future for bloodshed... What faced me was what on the morrowwould be the DandaFauj (Rebel Army).I firedand continuedto fire until the crowd dispersedand I considerthis the least amountof firing which would producethe necessarymoral and widespread effect it was my duty to
45Statement theArmyCouncil, 697. to p.
BRITISH REACTION TO THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE
145
produce,if I was to justifymy action. If more troopshad been at hand It would have been greaterin proportion. was no longera the casualties a the questionof merelydispersing crowd,but one of producing sufficient moraleffect, from a militarypoint of view, not only on those who were presentbut more speclallythroughoutthe Punjab.There could be no questionof undueseverity.46
of The actualbehaviour the frankpassage. It is an astoundingly The point, rather,was that "everyman crowdwas irrelevant. to Baghwas a messenger tell who escapedfromthe Jallianwala The in thatlawandorderhadbeenrestored Amritsar". massacre I Dyer'smessage, mightadd, education. in wasan exercise moral of to waspertinent all thosepartsof the globe(someone quarter red at its landsurface the time) coloured on Britishmaps.Ceror, by as tainlyit washeard such,whether Carson as we will see, at of workers fearful "Dyerism" home. British he Dyer'sreportwasfiledon 25 August.In October wasgiven 1920 and of command a brigade, inJanuary temporary permanent werevigorously of command a division.His actionsin Amritsar Bill on bothin the debate the Indemnity in the imperial defended own government's stateand council,47 in the Punjab legislative to But on the disturbances.48 eventswerebeginning move ment him. against in of secretary stateforIndia,underpressure EdwinMontagu, in had nationalists, promised May and the Commons fromIndian ManyBritishin 1919to set up an inquiryinto the disturbances. Sir of the India,including commander-in-chiefthe army,General of Monro,the homememberof the government India, Charles of Butler,governor the Sir WilliamVincent,and Sir Harcourt opposedan inquiryof any sort. They felt it UnitedProvinces, for providea platform into disrepute, wouldbringthe military feelings".Therewas much and Indianmilitants inflame"racial of and disputebetweenMontagu the government Indiaoverthe of form appropriate andtermsof reference the inquiry.Eventua had ally on 18 July 1919 Montagu sent Chelmsford telegram by wouldbe appointed the governthat announcing a committee
46
pp. Passages quoted from Dyer's report are taken from Draper, Amritsar, 154-6;
Commiltee, 1116. p. Hunter

47 See, for example, the speech by the adjutant-generalof India, Sir Henry Havelock pp. to Hudson, appended by Dyer to his Statement theArmyCouncil, 702-3. See also pp. Draper, Amritsar, 158-61. April 1919, P.P., 1920 (Cmd. 534), xiv, on 48Reports the PunjabDisturbances, pp. 931-1000. See esp. pp. 938-9, on what were seen as the beneficial results of Dyer's action.
146
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
mentof India,with a chairman chosenby the secretary state. of The inquiry wouldconsider onlythe causesof the disorders, not butalso"themeasures takento copewiththem".LordHunter's committee beganits hearings 29 October1919. on In his testimony, Dyer substantially reiterated whathe saidin his earlierreport,including that "my mind was madeup as I camealongin mymotorcar".Whenaskedwhether hadfeared he attack,he answered, "No ... I had madeup my mind that I would do all men to deathif they were going to continuethe meeting".He also confirmed he wouldprobably that haveused his machine-guns he been able to. Questioned whether had on his aim had been to producea "moraleffect"throughout the Punjab rather thanjustto disperse crowd,Dyer stated: the
These were rebelsand I must not treat them with gloves on. They had comeout to fightif they defiedme, andI wasgoingto give thema lesson . . . I was going to punishthem. My ideafromthe military point of view wasto makea wide impression . . Yes, throughout Punjab.I wanted . the to reducetheirmoral[e]; the moral[e] of the rebels.
Askedwhether suchuse of terrormightnot in factdiscredit the Raj,he replied"It was a merciful thoughhorrible and they act oughtto be thankful me for doingit ... I thoughtit would to be doinga jollylot of goodandtheywouldrealize theywere that not to be wicked".The childishness the language of here runs throughout Dyer'stestimony, speaks and volumes abouthis perceptions Indians the roleof the British relation them. of and in to Asked laterwhathe meantby sayingthathis actionhada "salutoryeffect",Dyerresponded: wantto punish naughty "I the boy; itwouldbe difficult saywhatwouldbe theeffectof punishment to orla boy who is not naughty".49 Anotherstrandin Dyer'stestimony equallyrevealing. is Admittingthat the crowdbeganto disperseas soon as he began firing, probably and couldwell havebeendispersed withoutany firing all, he explained at why he nonethe less continued firing: "Icoulddisperse themfor sometime, thenthey wouldall come
49Dyer's testimony, reproduced in Evidence TakenBeforethe Disorders Inquiry Committee, 5 vols. (Calcutta, 1920), iii, pp. 114-39: the quotes in this and the following paragraph from pp. 117, 123, 126, 131. He disputed parts of the record, including are theassertion that he "would do all men to death" - but committee members recall beingstruck by the oddity of the phrase as he uttered it. Substantial extracts are givenin Hunter Committee the minority report); Datta, 3'allianwala (esp. Bagh; Draper, Amritsar. Two more volumes were withheld from publication by Montagu at Chelmsford's request: these contained evidence given in camera by O'Dwyer, and by thegovernments of the Punjab and of India, among others.
147
myself I backandlaughat me andI considered wouldbe making of The a fool". He felt no need to elaborate. importance mainhe tainingface in Indiawas something clearlytook to be self(not to say at evident.Fearof beinglaughed mayseema bizarre and for justification a massacre, ampleconfirmation, an obscene) But if any be needed,of Dyer's pathology. in this, as in much of the else,he wasmerelyarticulating consciousness a caste."For had minister writtenin 1892, "the a a century", formercabinet has behaved in India as a demi-god ... Any Englishman in of weakening this confidence the mindsof the Englishor of was distance Unbridgeable the Indianswouldbe dangerous".50 sociallife, from the in manifested every detailof Anglo-Indian of to on prohibitions "miscegenation" the architecture the Civil of construction Indithefictional sustained Lines.Suchdistancing if Raj with its moralunderpinnings, at the ans whichprovided of fuellinga chronicfear of what lay (in the title of the cost RudyardKipling'schillingstory) "Beyondthe Pale". Repreto of sentations powerare alwaysintegral its exercise,and they of India.The "handful" British so wereespecially in post-Mutiny they were few, and were acutelyawareof their vulnerability; securityon a largelyIndianarmy.They for depended military adapting its to sought,magically, wieldpowerthrough symbols, the caste (the IndianCivil Servicecalledthemselves "heavenDyer was simplyvoicingthe the born"),appropriating Durbar. commonplace. VI for reports, report or moreaccurately Committee The Hunter was submittedto the the committeesplit, on raciallines censured of government Indiaon 8 March1920. The majority to a Dyerfor firingwithoutgivingthe assembly chance disperse, startedto do so. to and for continuing fire afterit had already effect"his actionwould in His justification termsof the "moral produceelsewherewas "a mistakenconceptionof his duty". British to of Therewasno firmevidence a conspiracy overthrow power,or basisfor the beliefthatDyer had"savedthe situation in the Punjaband averteda rebellionon a scale similarto the and orderwas"injudicious" objectionable His Mutiny". crawling
50Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, quoted in Kiernan, Lords of Human Kind, p. 57.
148
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
becauseit "punishedinnocentas well as guilty", an "act of humiliation" causing"bitterness racialill-feeling".Other and actions takenundermartial werecriticized, irregularities law and admittedin the procedures the summary of courts. But such abuses werenot seenas systematic, O'Dwyer the Punjab and and government escaped criticism.5t The minority report,signedby the threeIndianmembers of the committee, considerably was morehostile.Dyer was further rebukedfor inadequately publicizing proclamation his priorto the meetingat the Bagh.His firingwas condemned an act of as "frightfulness" comparable German to atrocities Franceand in Belgium, something "inhuman un-British" an interesting and choiceof words.He was criticized makingno provision for for the wounded. Martial-law orders"weredesigned wereused and forpunitive purposes". humiliating The features theseorders, of theirintention "teaching Indian of the population lesson",were a stressed amplydocumented.S2 minority and The were considerably more scathingover the actionof the police, militaryand courtsundermartiallaw, and questioned necessityfor its the imposition the firstplace.They werealso farmorecritical in of O'Dwyer,concluding his "point of view was and still is the that sameas thatof General Dyer"53 notunreasonably, O'Dwyer's as vigorous advocacy Dyer'scausewassubsequently show. of to Theviceroy's executive council accepted majority's the conclusionsregarding Dyer. Therewas near-unanimity he should that beretiredfromthe army,but withoutbeingcashiered otheror wise prosecuted. This, in Monro'swords, would "arousethe sentiments the services".54 3 Maythe government India of On of wroteto Montagu.Dyer's actionat the Jallianwala Bagh "exceeded requirements the caseandshoweda misconception the of ofhis duty".Dyerhowever"actedhonestly", "in the result and hisactionchecked spread the disturbances". was "with the of It pain"that the government requesting commander-inwas the chiefto takeappropriate action.This exonerating language may have genuinely reflected government India's the of view, or may have beena sop to Anglo-Indian publicopinion; any event,it in
Hunter Committee, passim; quotesfrompp. 1034, 1035, 1087. Ibid.,p. 1112:a subheading the minority in report.See alsopp. 1119, 1122. 53 Ibid.,p. 1118. 54 Quoted by Datta,3tallianwala Bagh,p. 134,who givesa detailed account these of discussions.
5t 52
149
and of is indicative whatthe latterwas. Despite"irregularities" of acts" and "injudicious irresponsible in the administration marnamedin the HunterReportmerited tial law, no otherofficers censure.As for O'Dwyer,his "decisionand vigour... [were] risingwhichmight for largelyresponsible quellinga dangerous on effects therestof India".55 and havehadwidespread disastrous thoughpolite,wasmuchless of The secretary state'sresponse, Dyer's firingin muchstronger condemned Montagu equivocal. the terms, and described crawlingorderas offending"against He every canonof civilisedgovernment". also took issue with abuses,detecting: overmartial-law the Huntermajority
not a spiritwhich prompted not generally,but unfortunately uncomif and of monly-the enforcement punishments orderscalculated, not inconvenias Indians a race,to causeunwarranted intended,to humiliate of and to on ence amounting occasions injustice, to floutstandards proprinot ety and humanity,which the inhabitants, only of Indiain particular, but of the civilisedworldin general,have a rightto demandof those set over them.56 in authority
also Montagu pointed involvedshouldbe censured. The officers by required the betweensentences out "the extremedivergence courtsand by the dictates to as charges presented [martial-law] authoritto themselves the reviewing of justiceas theypresented O'Dwyerfor his review,and criticized ies" in the laterjudicial of partin this, andfor his overlyhastysupport Dyer'sactionat is, languageunfailingly it Diplomaticas Montagu's Amritsar. cannothidethe deepriftsbetweenLondonandSimla.In private "I wentto the heartof the matter: feel Montagu correspondence, a represents regimethatis doomed".57 that [O'Dwyer] VII on at Dyerlanded Southampton 3 May1920.He wasinterviewed by burntbrick-red by on arrival the Daily Mail. "The General, hair greying andkindly years'servicein India. . . with thirty-five that and Committee complained the derided Hunter blueeyes")58 to after,he applied withouttrial.Shortly he hadbeensentenced
55 This correspondence was published as an addendum to the Hunter Report: of betweenthe Government India and the Secretaryof State for India on Correspondence the Report of Lord Hunter's Committee,P.P., 1920 (Cmd. 705), xxxiv, pp. 649-76. 56 Ibid., p. 674. 57 Letter from Montagu to Chelmsford: Draper, Amritsar, p. 212, quotes this, without supplying date or source location. 58 Daily Mail, 4 May 1920.
150
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
the IndiaOfficefor leave to statehis case to the armycouncil. Montagu, the meantime, askedforlegaladviceon whether in had or not further actioncouldbe takenagainst Dyer.59 burden The of SirEdward Chamier's wasthatDyercouldindeedbe des note triedfor culpable homicide underthe Indian penalcode,but that anyjuryin eitherIndiaor England wouldbe likelyto acquit him. Montagu's cabinet committee decided do allit couldto forestall to anyprivateprosecution beingbrought. AmongDyer'ssupporters weremilitary members the army of council.Sir Henry Wilson,chief of the imperialgeneralstaff, insisted,againstcabinetpressure,upon Dyer being given the opportunity submita statement his defence.He wrote in to in his diary, after a particularly stormymeetingwith Churchill, "The Frocks[politicians] havegot India(as they have Ireland) into a filthymess. On thatthe soldiers calledin to act. This are is disapproved by all the disloyalelementsand the soldieris of thrown the winds".60 to Speculation rifein the pressthatthe was armycouncil wouldrepudiate findings theHunter the of Committee; indeedthe Guardianreported as fact.61 Timescauthis The tionedthat:"it has been accepted this countrysincethe day in when Charles lost his head [that]the civil power shouldbe I supreme over the militarypower.Are the relativepositionsof the ArmyCouncil the Cabinet this juncture violation and at a of thisprinciple?".62 ritualinvocation whichis to say, the The reconstruction of British"tradition" to be a dominant was motifof thesedebates,on both sides.Even the Indianminority onLordHunter's committee choseto condemn Dyerin termsof his "un-British" behaviour. the event, the armycouncilenIn dorsed removal Dyer fromhis command, did not feel the of but anyfurther actionwas calledfor. O'Dwyer,meantime, published statement 9 Junewhich a on branded Hunter the Committee's composition "defective" as and
59Draper,Amritsar, 217-19,gives a detailed pp. accountof this incident,basedon cabinet paperscloseduntil 1971. 60 Quotedibid.,p. 222. In linkingIndiaand Ireland (as well as in his pronounced anti-Bolshevism) was representative many of Dyer's prominentsupporters. he of There of course,an olderanddeeperintertwining various is, of "Indians" Ireland and inEnglishdiscourses: J. Muldoon, see "Indian Irishman", as Essex Hist. Institutes, iii (1975). Wilsonwasassassinated 1922by SinnFein,against in whom,as the Dictionary ofNationalBiography puts it, "he never ceased to advocatea system of drastic coercion". 61 Manchester Guardian, July 1920. 7 62 The Times, June 1920,editorial, 26 "A Constitutional Question".
151
He as its denounced minority "not impartial". also impliedthat eviand had Montagu misledparliament the public,providing had Montagu claimed, letterof 2 July.63 denceof thisin a further on in the Commons 16 December1919,to havefirstknownthe from press reportsthe same massacre detailsof the Amritsar on told said month.O'Dwyer he hadpersonally Montagu 30 June 1919 of Dyer's havingfired withoutwarning,the numberof and the crawlingorder. roundsfired, the extent of casualties throughinterest "extraordinary reported On 14JuneTheTimes of and "intensebitterness out India"in O'Dwyer'sstatement, of the against Secretary State".TheAnglofeelingin India British and "mendacity equiMontagu's Indianpress had condemned of Association India vocations".The councilof the European in body of Europeans Indiastronglyuphold cabled:"General of of actions Government IndiaandSecretary Dyerandcondemn in harassed the Commons.65 was Montagu repeatedly of State".64 in Correspondence the press pointedto Indiansupportfor the Dyer'saction(somecitingthe Sikhinvestiture),66 participain and who were not "innocent ignorant" the tion of villagers in and the reality of conspiracy India.68 riots and looting,67 One Dyer.69 Thoughsomeletterswere critical,most supported Carlyon manwho hadservedunderhim offereda testimonial.70 the captures tone of muchof this correspondence: Bellairs
Ibid.,9 June,2 July 1920. Ibid.,10 June 1920,letterfromG. Morgan. claimshere cxxx, cols. 2149-54 Montagu's 5th ser. (Commons), 65 See Hansard, those of O'Dwyerin his letterof 2 July, so one of them was lying; flatlycontradict for was criticized the ibid.,cxxxi, cols. 452-4, 1411-21.In the lattercase, Montagu for commission his to sentenced deathby a martial-law Bashir, of release Mohammed riots, then releasedafterthe later judicialreview;see allegedpart in the Amritsar of speechin the Dyer debateof 8 Julyandthe exchange 14July,when alsoGwynne's to the Montaguwas accusedof pressurizing Indiangovernment changeits line on Dyer: ibid.,cxxxi, cols. 1793-804,2347-51. Tuting;see andConstance 1 66 TheTimes, June 1920,lettersfromLordSydenham ibid., 13, 23 July 1920, and Lord Lamington: also the later letters of Sydenham respectively. 67 Ibid.,4 June 1920, letterfromS. R. Purnell. ibid., see alsoletterfrom"Freelance", 68 Ibid.,5 July 1920,letterfromSydenham; Dyer's "moraleffect"argument. 8 June 1920,defending cited here, were fromJ. D. Rees (ibid., apartfromthoseotherwise 69 Exceptions, 10 July 1920);K. S. Gupta(ibid.,26 July 1920);J. Callanand others (Manchester publisheda letter Statesman 6 Guardian, July 1920). On 14 July 1920 the Calcutta of attackingthe "Prussianism" Dyer's action it from twenty-fivemissionaries a unleashed floodof invective. 1 70 The Times, June 1920.
63 64
152
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
The [Dyer] controversy may, indeed,be a turningpoint in our Imperial history.Britishrule has been respected becauseit has been wiselystrong without being cruel, and becausethe word of the Englishman was his bond . . . underdemocracy there has been a progressive declinein both these directions... Chathamgave his men a free hand. He certainly censuredfor sins of omission,but one wouldbe surprised come upon to any episodein his careerwhere he excitedlycensuredthe too thorough executionof any task . . . In the wake of every greatachievement, in as Dyer'scase, thereis dustanddirt . . . Whena handful whitesarefaced of by hundreds thousands fanatical of of natives,one cannotapplyone'sJohn StuartMill.7l
The OxfordUnion,in a debateon 10 June,upheldthe governmentstanceon Dyer, but very narrowly. majority 130 The was to 121. Therewasonesharply different response, whichI havetouched on already. The Labour PartyConference Scarborough at unanimouslypasseda resolution 24 June which denounced on the "crueland barbarous actions"of Britishofficers the Punjab, in andcalledfor theirtrial,the recallof O'DwyerandChelmsford, and the repealof repressive legislation. Delegates"rosein their places as a tribute to 'India'smartyreddead' '.72 This undoubtedly reflectsa widerworking-class identification the with victimsof Jallianwala, fearthattheirstrikes and mightmeetwith the sametreatment. Perceptions popular of struggles Bolsheas vik-inspired conspiracies not confined the Punjab, to were to nor Sir MichaelO'Dwyer.This was 1920,and the paperswere full of Bolshevikatrocities. The Guardian,sensitiveto these fears, editorialized against "ourwell-to-doPrussians" the Labour and resolution, whichit sawas extremist.73 point,of course,was The to individualize massacre Dyer'spurelypersonal the as misjudgement,a processnow well underway. VIII Dyer'scasewas debated the Commons 8 July 1920.74 in on The Times's pleathatthereweremoreimportant issuesfacing India "We do not welcomethe prospectof an Amritsar in the day
Ibid-, 8 July 1920Ibid., 25 June 1920. 73 See ManchesterGuardian, 8, 19 July 1920. 74 See Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, cols. 1705-820. All of the books on the massacre cited above give fairly full coverage. The Times,9 July 1920, devoted almost two full pages to the debate, giving the speeches verbatim, as well as printing Dyer's (lengthy) statement to the army council in full.
71 72
153
Houseof Commons"75 fell on deafears.MostBritishpapers gave it lead editorials,The Times opiningthat Dyer's crawling order was a "lamentable betrayalof the British traditionof equanimity restraint", and while his censurealonehad "served to restore reputation British the of justice the eyesof India. . . in Eventssuchas thoseat Amritsar . . obscure national . our purpose andbetraythe idealswhichinspireit". Similar arguments were put forwardin the Guardian the Pall Mall Gazette.Both and Dyer andO'Dwyer,as well as a number Indianprinces, of were in the gallery.The benches weremorecrowded thanfor a year, except-a sign of the times for some debateson Russia. The atmosphere "electric".76 the Pall Mall Gazette, was For "Clubman" reportedthat "I have seldomseen feelingrun so high>77 Montagu opened the government. askedmembers: for He "Are you going to keep your hold upon India by terrorism, racial humiliation subordination, frightfulness, areyougoing and and or to rest it upon the goodwill,and the growinggoodwill,of the peopleof your IndianEmpire? believethat to be the whole I questionat issue".78Carson,the next to speak, shifted the ground dramatically. concurred He with Montaguon how Indiashould governed. wasbeinglessthaningenuous be He here: Carson's advocacy Dyerwasnot unrelated considerations of to of methodsof government Ireland.And indeedalmostall the for anti-government votes at the close of the debatewere cast by coalitionUnionists,while Ulster members were disproportionatelyrepresented. one way,crystal In clearat the time,the whole Dyer controversy a thinlycodeddiscussion Ireland, was of then in open revolt.And of more. The Guardian day observed next that "General Dyer's more thoroughsupporters no means by intendto stop at India ... AfterIndia,Ireland.After Ireland, Britishworkmen strike".79 on
75 The Times, June 1920, editorial, 3 when the issue of a "Dyer debate"was first raised. 76 Ibid.,8 July 1920. 77 Pall Mall Gazette, July 1920. The Times, July 1920, likewisereported 9 9 that "the most remarkable aspectof the debatewas the bitterfeelingshowntowardsMr Montagu. . . No attackof such concentrated violenceon an individual Ministerhas been madesince . . . coalition government began". 78 Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, col. 1708. 79Manchester Guardian, July 1920. The editorialcharacterized vote as a 9 the "Unionist revolt";it alsoexpressed concern abouthow "everyIndiandemagogue of the future"mightuse Jallianwala.
154
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
But the issuebeforethe House,Carson continued, not the was governance India.It waswhether of Dyerhadbeenfairly treated; andmanifestly hadnot: he
You talk of the great principlesof liberty which you have laid down. General Dyer has a rightto be broughtwithinthoseprinciples liberty. of He has no right to be brokenon the ipse dixit of any Commission or Committee, howevergreat,unlesshe has been fairlytried- and he has not been tried.
Carson concluded, "loudandprolonged to cheers": breaka "to manunderthe circumstances this caseis un-English".80 of Churchill Asquithreplied:they havebeen quotedabove. and Churchill playedon the themeof national too character: "Such ideas['frightfulness'] absolutely are foreignto the British wayof doing things", and Dyer's censurewas needed to make this "absolutely clear''.81 Spoor theLabour Ben put view.SirWilliam Joynson-Hicks quoteda letterfromMissSherwood pointed and out the overwhelming support Dyerhadamongthe British communityin India. He also claimed(instancing Dyer's claim of beingmadean "honorary Sikh")that "General Dyer wasandis to-day belovedof the Sikh nation".Brigadier-General Surtees bluntlyopinedthat if a plebiscitewere held in Indiaon who shouldrule, it wouldgo against Britain; drewthe moral"if and we do not holdIndiaby moralsuasion, thenwe mustholdit by force".Surtees, DyerandO'Brien, sensitive issuesof like was to face.Whiterulewouldbe overwhelmed throughout empire, the he asserted, "butforonething.Thatonethingis British prestige. Once you destroythat Britishprestige,then the Empirewill collapse a houseof cards". like Colonel Wedgewood aszealous was in his concern British for prestige, drewdifferent but conclusions:
The principal charge makeagainst I Dyer is not thathe shotdownIndians, but that he placedon Englishhistorythe gravestblot since in daysgone by we burnedJoanof Arc . . . The safetyof womenand children,even, is of no importance compared with the honourof England.
His priorities instructive. are Bonar Law,in closingfor the government, reiterated Dyer's"moral that effect"argument "a was principle opposed the wholeof the British to Empire". Whenthe vote was takenthe government by 230 to 129. Therewere won manyabstentions the government on side. Hadnot almostall of
80 81
Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, cols. 1712, 1719. See above, p. 131; Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, cols. 1729, 1730.
155
Liberalmembersvoted the sixty-six Labourand Independent motionwouldhavepassed.82 Carson's with the government, ("No The Commonsvote was welcomedby the Guardian the couldfail to condemn howeverconstituted, Britishtribunal, the actiontakenat Amritsar"; Lordswere shortlyto provethis ("Thereis no and quitewrong)83 the Observer benignself-image Dyerwasnot the conscious General of question moralturpitude. . authorof a massacre . . [But] his judgement and bloodthirsty In at and fatally tragically fault").84 acrimonious waslamentably, of the deplored decision Sydenham to correspondence the press, affectthe interests whichwould"disastrously the armycouncil, who collldhardlynow be counteduponto of all loyalIndians", by the handfulof Englishmen and womenin India"if "stand did their own government not.85The M.P. RonaldMcNeill of of (whoseassessment the relativeimportance Indianlives and to vilifiedMontagu: proprestigealso bearsremarking) British that claim"to the worldwithouta scrapof justification a large terrorfavours section,or anysection,of the Houseof Commons for and ism, frightfulness racialhumiliation India"was "a more Dyer's".86 thanGeneral errorof judgement mischievous The the The Lordsdebated issuetwo weekslater.87 Guardian was to saidit wasimpossible justifya debateat all:the affair best occasion. a But buried.88 it wasby allaccounts glittering decently scene in the House of Lordslast "Therewas a reallybrilliant "has night ... Not since beforethe war", wrote "Clubman", there been such a gatheringof peeresses,and the Stranger's and Anglo-Indians Indiwith distinguished was Gallery crowded and turbans, the manyof them,woregorgeous ans.The Indians, The robesof silk".89 recentlyinvesteddukeof ladieswonderful
cxxxi, cols. 1762, 1777, 5th ser. (Commons), 82 For above quotes, see Hansard, 1775, 1788, 1811. 9 Guardian, July 1920. 83 Manchester "The Dyer Caseandthe Soulof the Empire". 11 84 Observer, July 1920,editorial of "The decision the drewthe Irishparallel: 13 85 TheTimes, July 1920.Sydenham like will ArmyCouncil carrynot peacebut the swordto an Indiadominated, Ireland, by intimidation". 86 Ibid., 16 July 1920. 5th ser. (Lords),xli, cols. 221-308, 311-78. 87 Hansard, in 20 Guardian, July 1920, editorial;The Times its report(20 July 88 Manchester is 1920)of the firstday of the debate(19 July 1920)likewiseopined:"the material that the governNotes" hadreported wearingthin". Five daysearlierits "Political outcome"in the debate. everynerveto securea favourable mentwas "straining 20 July 1920. 89 Pall Mall Gazette,
156
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
York(thefutureGeorge chosethisoccasion attendhis first VI) to Lordsdebate.90 Amongthe sixteenspeakers were five former governors Indianprovinces,one formerviceroy,and three of former secretaries statefor India.Onlysix of themsupported of Viscount Finlay'smotionthat "thisHousedeplores conduct the of the case of GeneralDyer as unjustto that officerand as establishing precedent a dangerous the preservation order to of in the face of rebellion". Nevertheless motionpassed,by a the majorityof 129 to 86. Dyer was presentat the debate, and "pleased thedivision . . manypeersgreeted afterwards with . him in the lobby''.9lThe Timesprofoundly regretted decision.92 the The Guardian commented:
A vote in favour even indirectly of "Prussianism" India by a in House representing especiallythe old British"governingclasses"must not merelydo harmin India. . . It mustalsodo harmat home,wherethe mindsof a dangerously largenumberof workmenare alreadypossessed withthe explosiveideathatthe "capitalist" classes working are themselves up to an attempt to re-establishtheir decliningpower with machineguns.93
The Dyer lobby's"obduracy a courseinspiredby contempt in for subjectracesand by fearof popular movements", added, it by now inevitably, too Bourbon Hohenzollern be quite "is or to English". Lord Sumner'spassionate speech in Dyer's defencemerits quotation length.It too soundsa very English at refrain:
If General Dyer had been tried tried in any form that you like, such as enablesa man to have it calleda trial-he wouldhave been entitled to have a definitechargeformulated againsthim in writing before the Inquirybegan,so far as it relatedto him;he wouldhavebeen entitledto knowwhatthe chargewas;he wouldhavebeenentitledto knowwho was to be calledagainsthim; he would have been entitledto cross-examine those personsand to call witnessesto answerthem;he wouldhave been entitledto be represented; wouldhave been entitledto be presentat he every stage of the hearing,and he wouldhave been entitledif he chose, to offer himselfas a witness,with the protectionof advisersif he gave evidence,not in the capacityof a personcharged,but in the capacityof a person who, as an officerof the Government, was bound to give an accountof his doings. He wouldhavebeen entitledthen to be warnedthattherewere certain
90Ibid., 21July1920. 9l Ibid. 92 The Times, 21 July 1920, editorial, concluding "many Englishmen in the East . . . are out of touch with the newer conditions of imperial rule". Exactly! 93 ManchesterGuardian,21 July1920, editorial, "An Unwise Vote".
BRITISH REACTION THEAMRITSAR TO MASSACRE
157
questionsthat he need not answer. . . he was heardwithoutany of these protections.94
commisWe are a long way fromthe RowlattActs, martial-law sionsandsummary justice the "Crawling of Lane"andJallianwala Bagh. IX In the run-upto the Commons debate,the MorningPost was dailyeditorializing it was Montagu, Dyer, who should that not be on trial.95 Dyer'sactionwasnecessary protect"thehonour to was of European women".The vile attackon Miss Sherwood recalled.Immediately afterthe Commons defeatedthe censure for on Montagu, Post launched "Appeal Patriots" funds the an to for Dyer. It was meantto assurehim that the Britishpeople conduct of "dissociated themselves fromthe meanandcowardly deserted thepoliticians thetime-servers" hadso cravenly and who are him. "WhileGeneral DyersavedIndia,the politicians saving themselves his expense.It is a burning at reproach the British to nationthatsucha thingcouldbe possible". Theannouncement thefunddrive(10July1920)wasaccomof paniedby an editorial headed"TheseBe Thy Gods,O Israel", and two days later, underthe headline"The Causeof World of Unrest(the Jews)",the Post begana two-weekserialization the (fraudulent) Protocols the LearnedEldersof Zion. Montagu of stance, wasJewish.The Timestoo, notwithstanding anti-Dyer its had drawnattentionto this in its coverageof the Commons debate:"Mr Montagu, patriotic sincereEnglishLiberalas and he is, is also a Jew, and in excitement the mentalidiomof has the East". His speech had been insensitiveto "our inductive Englishmethodof politicalargument"96 Guardian,to the (the embarrasscontrary, described as "plain it speaking . . obviously . ing to the soldier's apologists").97 M.P. T. J. BennettcomThe debate plained The Timesthatthe atmosphere the Commons to in had been "not free . . . fromthe racialprejudice whichworked
Hansard, ser. (Lords),xli, col. 334. 5th For fullerdetailsof the Morning Post campaign what follows,see Draper, and Amritsar) 236-8; Fein, Imperial pp. Crime Punishment, 169-70(excellenton and pp. the anti-Semitism); Furneaux, Massacre Amritsar, 153, 156, 160, 162-3. at pp. 96 Reportof the debatein The Times, July 1920 9 there is more of the same. Churchill's by contrast"a brilliant was speech". 97 Manchester Guardian, July 1920. 9
94 95
158
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
mischief France in during Dreyfus the controversy".98 Therecan be littledoubthe wasright. Theresponse the appeal staggering. to was Within hours?1,500hadbeenraised; 16July,?10,000; twenty-four by andwhenthe fundwas eventually closed,?26,317.4s. lOd. a vast sum of money. The contributors were very varied.There were many aristocrats, includingthe countessof Bathurst,the duke of Westminster, earlof Harewood the dukeandduchess the and of Somerset.RudyardKiplingsent ?10 (with the laconic and, I believe,thoroughly accurate observation: didhis duty,as he "He sawit"). O'Dwyersubscribed. Despitethe Indian government's prohibition contributions its officers servants on from and (many regimental messes and civil servantsmade them pseudonymously),largeamounts wereraisedin India,amounting of the totalcollected.Moneywas donated jute to a third by and railwayworkers, schoolchildren, Anglo-European associations clubs, and andforwarded through Anglo-Indian the newspapers. Bengal In 6,250British womenpetitioned primeminister, the protesting at Dyer's treatment. thirteen-woman A committee outto present set "the Saviour the Punjab of witha swordof honour a purse", and expressing their "indignation the dangers pandering a at of to small bandof disloyalagitators whosenoisymouthings dethe luded Britishpublic are mistaking the voice of the loyal for millions India". of Many smaller donations, evidently from poorer people, often with army connections, floodedin: "poor and proud", widow'smite", "a patriotic "a Englishwoman one and ofthe new poor", "a mite for the gallant soldier", "daily breader". individual Most contributions Indiawere from than rupees. voiceof thosewho"knewIndia", of less 10 The andwhose resentment"themanon the ground" beingtrustedto at not use his own judgement palpable,is well represented: is "Another disgusted sahib","one of the manywives who have most their time in India", "eight years in the to spend of East", "a daughter sisterof officers and who have servedin India".And the Post's anti-Semitism strucka responsive chord:one uter signed himself"a believerin the Jewishperil",contribanother "Pogrom". notbelievesuchsupport be dismissed I do can merely as voiceof a smallreactionary the fringe."Thecondemnation of a loyal Soldierby the 'Gallipoli Gambler"' arouseddeep and
98
The Times, 12 July 1920.
159
at outrage,an outrage leastas greatas the Amritsar widespread itself. slaughter

X
Why shouldthis be so? Or, to put the questionmore sharply, come Bagh of howcouldthe perpetrator theJallianwala massacre victim? as to be so widelyperceived its principal fromupper-and to appears havecomelargely Dyer'ssupport with India groups,or thosewith directconnections middle-class and formeda well-organized exor the army. His advocates the claque.However, claimthatDyer located favourably tremely Monwas expediency plausible. wasa victimof shoddypolitical on when he first learnedthe detailsof the tagu's evasiveness on leaning the armycouncil,andthe semiChurchill's massacre, public chasm betweenthe home and Indiangovernments this. to in debated the press99 allconspired confirm extensively and the a Sodidthe delayof almost yearbetween massacre Dyer's censure,duringwhich time he was twice in effect promoted. the Fromthe point of view of the Britishgovernment, findings Dyer alone convenient. wereevidently of the HunterCommittee excesses,and Jallianthe couldshoulder blamefor martial-law for a furnished fineoccasion enunciating wala,in the meantime, as of conception "Britishness" something a self-congratulatory from "Dyerism",and muchbettersuitedto the quite different name:"Frightnew era of the reformswhich bore Montagu's with more pompositythan historical fulness",said Churchill, pharmacopoiea'' knownto the British "is accuracy, not a remedy went in (it was the kindof thing,he added,thatthe Bolsheviks
for).loo
and transparent, Dyer's supporters But it was all somewhat werein theirownwaybothmorehonest,andeverybit as moral. Bellairs,for one, in the letter I have alreadyquoted,was not
lettersfrom in O'Dwyer'sstatements TheTimes: around 99 See the correspondence Association HolfordKnight(10 June 1920);G. Morgan,presidentof the European of India(17 June 1920);H. Beechey(30 June 1920);G. Morgan(2 July 1920);H. Beechey (S July 1920); M. W. Fenton (8 July 1920). Only Beechey supported of of the Montagu,denouncing "hoodwinking the Secretary State"by the governHolford and mentsof the Punjab Indiaas "an officialcrimeof the firstmagnitude". of Knightwas no supporter Dyer; he had lobbiedfor an earlyinquiryon behalfof cited above,n. 65. exchanges See the IndianNationalCongress. also the Commons cxxxi, col. 1728. 5th 1oo Hansard, ser. (Commons),
160
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
ashamed claiman historical to precedent Jallianwala in for Bagh Governor Eyre'sbloodysuppression the Jamaica of rebellion of 1865.1?l Dyer's expectation supportfor his actionsfrom the of authorities not unreasonable, was giventhe way Indiahad been administered since the Mutiny.Indeedhe had originally been supported both Beynonand O'Dwyer.Nor was that action by itselfquiteso foreignto the British imperial moresof the period as was claimed.The clearest indication this is not simplythe of impressive extentof Dyer'sfollowing, its lackof apologyor but embarrassment elevating"preventive in massacre" the high to moralstatusof Duty. It is the sheerrectitude the Dyer lobby of that is so striking the moreso giventhe undeniable sensein which Jallianwala self-evidently was singular.Such confidence strongly suggeststhatDyer'sdefencewas rootedin widelyheld norms.The question,then, arisesof what kind of ethos could haveallowed,indeedobligated, actions took. the he I mentioned Fein's conclusion that India'sBritishrulersexcluded Indians fromtheiruniverse moral of obligation, sought and to qualifythis. To be sure, doublestandards were grotesquely evident.As T. J. Bennettobserved the time, those who beat wailedDyer'slackof a fairhearing not extendtheirrespect did for due processto "the six lawyers Gujranwala wereled of who in handcuffs through streetsof thattown,keptin gaolfor six the weeks,and thenreleased uncharged untried''.l02 this is and But not the wholestory.Comprehension the massacre, believe, of I lies in whatit leavesout. Men like Dyer and O'Dwyerhad a clearconception their of duty towardsIndians,and of Indians'obligations towardsthe Raj, thisconception though and clearly, 1919,oneno longer by shared thegovernment London wasbyno means by in confined to them alone.Central it was maintenance order,and the to of supreme valueplacedon orderwas in turnpredicated their on construction Indiansas unfittedto governthemselves.The of Mutiny, whichloomedlargein theirimagination, a recurrent was symbol whatcouldhappen of whenorderbrokedown;a symbol, too,of Indianuntrustworthiness Britishvulnerability the and in faceof Bellairs's "hundreds thousands fanatical of of natives". Themaintenance orderwasjustified Anglo-Indians being of by as lolThe Times,8 July 1920. Brigadier-GeneralSurtees drew the same parallel in the
Commonsdebate on Dyer: Hansard, 5th ser. (Commons), cxxxi, col. 1776. 102 The Times, 12 July 1920-
161
in the interestsof theirIndiansubjects,and it was the Indians whomtheywouldbe failing they"shirked" duty,however if this unpleasant. the LordsdebateLord Sumnerarguedthat "It In was in mercyto them ['the Indianpopulation themselves'], in orderthattheymightnot die, thatit became dutyof General the Dyer to use forceand put to deaththosewho were challenging the authority the Government, were rebels,only not in of who arms''.103 marquess Salisbury The of extendedthe argument to the point wheremassacre becamea beneficient form of moral pedagogy: "Thepeopleof Indiaareentering upona greatexperiment;and surelythe lessonwhich, aboveall others,you must teach them is that there is nothingin self-government which authorises disorder''.104 Central this ethoswas a definiteconstruction the Indian to of assubject, extreme and socialdistancing anessential was mechanism for sustaining such fictions.This was, needlessto say, an enduringly racist construction, of a specificsort; and its but particularity needsto be acknowledged the eventsof 1919in if the Punjabare to be comprehended. much Anglo-Indian In mythology, "authentic" the Indiawas the Indiaof the villager and the loyalsepoy;"simplemanlyfellows,far morecongenial to it thanthe Bombay bania shopkeeper-moneylender,the or or volubleBengalibabu clerk,or the Madrasi or lawyer,heir of a longlineof Brahminical logic-choppers" description Victor (the is Kiernan's).105 is a powerful There romance too, wellcapable here of sustaining affection, respect evenloveforIndiaandIndians and thus imagined the partof its "Platonic on Guardians". Kipling evokesit, aboveall in Kim.PhilipMasonrecalls:
the tolerantand bantering none the less real affectionof masterand but officeron one side, the soldier'sor villager'strust, the confidencehe mingledwith a shrewdperception character thatwith whichsmall of like boys nicknamea schoolmaster. Those feelings were real; servantand master,officerandsoldier,riskedandsometimes downtheirlives for laid eachother.106
But,he continues, "therelationship notoneof equality; was there couldbe no familiarity no unguarded and speech".His reference
Hansard, 5th ser. (Lords),xli, col. 338. Ibid., col. 375osKiernan, Lords of Human Kind, pp. 55-6. l06Woodruff, Who Ruled India, ii, p. 17. The (apt) description"Platonic Men
103 104
Guardians" his he washimselfa twenty-year is veteran the Indian of CivilService, albeitat a laterdate, andwell placedto comment its self-conceptions. on
162
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
to "smallboys" is telling. So is his commenton Sir Michael O'Dwyer'sformative experiences a settlement as officerin the Western Punjab: camp[suchan officer] "in comesto thinkof the peasants his children,and the more masculine character as his the harder findsit to believethatanyoneelse can look after he them. And therecould be few characters moremasculine than O'Dwyer's" 107 AmongAnglo-Indians, dominant the conception imperial of purposethroughout period,mouldedby the experience this of the Mutiny,andhaunted the spectreof its recurrence, a by was paternalistic Indeedit wasabidingly one. patriarchal: obverse the of O'Dwyer'smasculine power is Miss Sherwood, female the embodiment violability. of Withinthis vision,andin sharpcontrastto the "improving" ethosso widespread earlier the cenin tury,l08 educated the Indianwas an anomaly, transgressor a of socialboundaries, offence(anda danger) the moralclassian to fications whichthe Rajreposed. on The simplevillager wouldbe easilyled astrayby suchmen, who if not agentsmustbe dupes of the Kaiseror the Bolsheviks whom O'Dwyersaw lurking everywhere. Thisis a castof mindwithinwhichpolitical activity could only be comprehended termsof conspiracy, in ordinary Indians havingbeen definedas incapable political of rationality. Whatwasexpected themwasobedience, of loyalty gratitude, and of the kindsymbolized investing in Dyeras an "honorary Sikh". They had a right to fatherlycare and this entailed,when necessary, fatherly chastizement. Whatstandout most, for me, in the testimonysurrounding the 1919Punjab disorders, the recurrent are vocabularies the of schoolroom. Doveton employed punishments redolent thepubof lic schools whichhis kindwereraised. in Dyerspokeof "teaching a lesson"to "naughty boys";andhis frequent references his to "horrible duty" recallnothingso much as the schoolmaster's "thiswill hurtme as muchas it hurtsyou". Salisbury took the argument its grotesque to extreme. do not doubteitherthatthe I situation perceived dangerous whites,with the experiwas as to enceof the Mutinyverymuchin mind,or thattherewereother, time-honoured racialmythsat work,as in the persistent referencesto "violation" whitewomen.Butwhatmakes of mostsense
Ibid.,p. 237. I am thinking,for example,of the viewsof C. E. Trevelyan LordMacaulay. or See Kiernan, Lords Human of Kind,pp. 37-42.
107 108
163
of the Amritsar massacre whatallowed to happen muted it and the horrorthat undoubtedly would have been arousedhad it happened Glasgow, in Belfastor Winnipeg is the rendering of Indians children: as children who once abandoned theirown to deviceswouldrevertto savagery, the boysin William like Golding's Lordof theFlies.Kipling,in his "WhiteMan'sBurden", speaksof colonial charges "new-caught, as sullenpeoples,halfdevil and half-child",which capturesit exactly.Anglo-Indian fondness the "martial for races"of Indiais not unconnected with this imagery.For militaryrelationsinvolve abjuring adult of responsibility: soldiers always"boys". are - It was the place Indiansoccupiedwithintheir rulers'moral universe, theirexclusion not fromit, whichexplains why, in the situation whichprevailed Amritsar a "rebellion", it was at as necessarily defined the sameset of conceptions they could by be slaughtered moraleffect;likethe cattleto whomO'Dwyer for once compared them,grazing, he put it, in the shadow the as of Britishoak.109 is this which makesJallianwala It anythingbut "singular", what authorized were the normsof "British for it India"duringthis period.It is also this which makesit most enduringly sinister.For if it is thought that the moral consciousness have tried to reconstruct I here is impoverishedthat to equatemassacre with a jolly good caningbetraysa lack of proportion thenthe appropriate answer an old one. One is thingChatham say, contrary Bellairs, that"unlimited did to was poweris apt to corrupt mindsof thosewho possessit''.1l0 the XI General Dyerdiedon 23 July1927.Obituaries sympathetic, were and he was given a militaryfuneral; wreathsand flowerswere laidat the Cenotaph Whitehall. Michael in Sir O'Dwyerfought, andwon, a libelactionin the courtof King'sBenchin 1922.Mr. Justice McCardie advised jurythatin hisview"General the Dyer, in the graveand exceptional circumstances, acted rightly,and . . . waswrongly punished the Secretary StateforIndia".1ll by of The jury agreed,by a majority eleven to one (the dissenter of llo History, Debates and Proceedingsof Both Houses of Parliament of Great Britain,
1743-1774, v (London, 1792), p. 141. 1ll Quoted in Draper, Amritsar, p. 260. 9 Quoted in Draper, Amritsar, p. 33.
164
PASTAND PRESENT
NUMBER131
was HaroldLaski).On 13 March1940,O'Dwyerwas shot by a Sikhwho wasat Jallianwala the day of the massacre. on Udham Singhwas tried,andhanged; statement the jurywas suphis to pressed underthe Emergency Powers (Defence) of 1939.The Act avenger Amritsar not beenentirely of has forgotten, however. In 1987,in the Londonborough Hounslow, motionto namea of a streetafterUdhamSinghcausedresignations withinthe Labour Party, on the groundsthat he was, "in the final analysis,a
murderer''.ll2
It is not altogether inappropriate give the last word to an to Irishman. Bernard Shawonce remarked "Thereis nothing that so bad or good that you will not find Englishmen doingit; but you will neverfindan Englishman the wrong. . . His watchin wordis alwaysDuty;andhe neverforgetsthatthe nationwhich lets its duty get on the oppositeside of its interestis lost''.1l3 Moral rhetoric ubiquitous the Dyeraffair. wouldbe the was in It gravestof errorsto conclude fromthis thatit was a meregloss, irrelevant practical to questions governance, eitherside. of on
University Alberta of Derek Sayer
Reported SundayTimes, Apr. 1988. in 10 GeorgeBernard Shaw, TheMan of Destiny,in The Works George of Bernard Shaw,33 vols. (London,1930-8),viii, p. 193. I owe this reference P. A. Saram. to
112 113

British Reaction To Amritsar Massacre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Reaction To Amritsar Massacre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Past and Present Society

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE 1919-1920*

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

MASSACRE TO BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH

BRITISH REACTION TO THE AMRITSAR MASSACRE

Commiltee, 1116. p. Hunter

MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH

MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH

MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH

BRITISH REACTION THEAMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

questionsthat he need not answer. . . he was heardwithoutany of these protections.94

The Times, 12 July 1920.

MASSACRE TO REACTION THE AMRITSAR BRITISH

at outrage,an outrage leastas greatas the Amritsar widespread itself. slaughter

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

BRITISH REACTION THE AMRITSAR TO MASSACRE

You might also like